Fringe historians have no shame. I received an email yesterday from Peter Demmon, the fiction writer who invented the Book of King Og, a fictitious translation of a lost apocryphal Jewish text. I knew that Demmon made it up, but I wasn’t sure if he intended for his readers to believe that the hoax was real. Demmon let me know that he didn’t intend for the fake to text to be taken seriously, and he was shocked to discover that gigantologist Steve Quayle—the right wing anger bomb who blames the Nephilim for homosexuality and implies biblical support for the genocidal extermination of gays—not only accepts the Book of King Og as real but went on disgraced televangelist Jim Bakker’s TV show to talk about how important the book is and his belief that it was written by Og, the Bible giant, himself:

“They just found his writings,” Quayle said. “And guess who released them? The Vatican, supposedly.”

His comments appear here at the 24:00 mark:

Quayle, who obviously did no research into the text that he assumes was actually written by a Bible giant, is misinforming thousands of viewers and revealing that he subsumes factual accuracy beneath ideological expediency.

The sad part is that his audience simply won’t care. We seem to be living in a post-fact age where allegiance to ideology (and increasingly the ideologue) is more important than whether that ideology has actual factual support. But Steve Quayle is far from the only person present himself as an avatar of low-information conspiracies this week.

J. Hutton Pulitzer is the Donald Trump of fringe history—a businessman of dubious accomplishment, a self-aggrandizing but insecure egomaniac, a conspiracy theorist—and now he is also a, like Trump, a purveyor of right wing ideology masquerading as a critique of science. In his latest blog post, Pulitzer revealed not just a stunning ignorance of modern science but also a paranoid conservatism that folds his anger and fear at “liberalism” into his stew of reasons why archaeology is wrong to suppress the grand accomplishments of some lost prehistoric civilization.

Pulitzer begins his post by describing the 1960 Lost World movie, which was based on the 1925 silent version, in turn based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s turn of the century Lost World novel. Pulitzer calls the movie racist for using non-native actors (he calls them “Italians”) and suggests that Hollywood was merely following the lead of academics, who treat non-white peoples as specimens: “I realized that the sci-fi writer most likely consulted some back woods rural South Carolina Pseudo-Archaeologist who never worked in the field, but only learned from books.” He accuses scholars of believing native people capable of nothing but “jiggly dances.” Pulitzer isn’t just lying—he clearly did no research into the film, or even the scholarship on native cultures available at the time—but he also reveals that his view of mainstream science is hopelessly trapped in the 1960s, as though time had simply stopped with the (wrong) paradigm of Man the Hunter.

“Man the Hunter” was the name of an influential 1966 symposium that attempted to make the case that human males evolved to be violent hunters while human females evolved to be nurturing gatherers. The paradigm remained influential for about 25 years, and it is often conflated in popular culture with Lewis Henry Morgan’s 1877 idea of linear cultural evolution from savagery to barbarism to civilization, a paradigm that had been on the decline since Franz Boas’s 1918 attack on linear development.

I’m 35 years old, and I have no active memory of Man the Hunter or the 1960s/1970s view of anthropology and human nature. That paradigm had collapsed before I was teenager, and the stereotype of cavemen hauling home slabs of meat for their dutiful wives was already a joke for cartoons when I was a kid. I’m not sure anyone under 40 would have a living memory of when this was a widespread view, or that anyone paying attention to modern science would think it still applied, much less Morgan’s 1877 linear model of development.

But for Pulitzer, the world of the 1960s isn’t just alive and well; it’s where he lives and where he thinks the rest of us live. (Probably, given his apparent age, his views formed during the 1970s.) Listen to him describe a 1960 movie with a toxic stew of anger at 1960s science and modern culture wars, themselves rooted in the changes to the social contract made during the 1960s (spelling and capitalization as in original):

So here is how wide the circle goes. Archaeologists got it wrong, sold the bad images to Hollywood and then Hollywood sold it to the world AND that is exactly WHY the psuedo-archaeologists, archaeologist, anthropologist and others STILL cannot disown bad data and beliefs and still stick to “man was simple”, “man could not sail great oceans before Columbus”, “Americas were only wild animals” and “Man was not more advanced in the ancient past”. These same “super left leaning” academics who espouse being “more moral, open and advanced” then the common man and women of today, still peddle historic swill as fact. These same people who will turn a blind eye to an inconvenient pregnancy being killed in womb, but will fight with all they have to have you imprisoned if you kill a feral animal, are the same people WHO DENY man was once better, smarter and did more amazing things than we could ever imagine. But yet, these same individuals hammer into our heads that ancient man was nothing more than wild animals themselves.

Notice the insidious political agenda used to smear scholarship: Academics, he alleges, purposely distort history to conform to Lewis Henry Morgan’s linear model in order to reinforce 1960s social paradigms for the (paradoxical) purpose of positioning themselves as the uppermost echelon of the linear order, the most evolved and therefore superior lords of the earth. The root of Pulitzer’s anger, then, is not at “facts” per se but rather at his feeling that he has been denied his rightful place at the head of the social order. It is the rage of the failure, blaming others for not recognizing his genius.

I can’t imagine how Pulitzer’s reactionary views will mesh with those of his XpLrR business partner Scott Wolter, who is one of those “super left-leaning” hippies he hates. Wolter, after all, believes in climate change, social progress, and even goddess worship!

Nothing's original - you could invent a religion today and create the biography of its "founder" claiming it dates from 90 years ago,

It has worked before.

Clint Knapp

5/26/2016 09:16:36 pm

Least original of all, though? Time Machine's arguments and racist, homophobic statements.

Clete

5/26/2016 11:35:27 am

Steve Quayle isn't the only one who accepts a work of fiction as factual. Didn't your friend and mine, the eminent seeker of truth, Scott Wolter, accept as fact "The DaVinci Code" and feel that it established the feminine divine as fact.

Reply

Doug

5/26/2016 03:06:05 pm

I was involved with a Christian Program when The DaVinci Code came out. I thought it was a very entertaining book with an interesting topic. It made me curious about things like the Illuminati, the Sacred Femanin, and so forth. But because I was part of this Christian program, they banned the book on campus and forbade any staff from reading it. It's just a book! It's entertainment! Why do people have to take what is a known fiction and turn it into conspiracy and/or fact? I left this program taking away from it alot of good stuff. I don't criticise Christians and or any other religion, but I do criticise the dogma. I live in the real world and I use my own brain to try to filter the BS from the truth. Banning books or seeing conspiracy in everything we read is dangerous and wrong.

Reply

A Buddhist

5/26/2016 04:29:59 pm

When I was still a Christian, that book came out and I read it not because it was espousing heresy. Now I am a Buddhist and still read it not because it has bad writing and bad scholarship!

Ken

5/26/2016 11:51:26 am

Pulitzer is obviously trying to exploit the Trump instigated band wagon of pent-up racism. He's not smart enough to realize its actually racist.

If he thought he could make a buck or two from all us left wing hippie scientists, he would be wearing love beads and smoking dope (openly - I'm sure he does now anyway).

Reply

spookyparadigm

5/26/2016 12:27:26 pm

I'm sure a populist revolt based on class, race, and religion in a country with thousands of nuclear weapons will turn out just fine.

Reply

Only Me

5/26/2016 02:29:15 pm

I'm sorry, but, every time I read one of these rants, I'm more impressed with how well the ad hominems describe the ranter. Projecting much, Pulitzer?

Anachronistic worldviews aren't that rare, it seems. We have someone loitering on this very blog that serves as a prime example.

I'm sure Demmon's hoax will continue to be one of Quayle's cornerstone arguments for a long time to come. How can you be wrong if you won't admit to being wrong?

Reply

Graffitibird

5/26/2016 02:56:34 pm

I'm sorry, but I cannot focus over there on Pulitzer's Daily Polemic with the consistent crappy publication - on the side tag bar he spells "pesudo" archeology while in the first lines of his missive we are treated to "psuedo archaelogists" twice. Is he referring to Fernando Lamas or Michael Rennie, both actors highly capable of "suede"-o performances? Hey, I've seen The Day the Earth Stood Still!

Wolter's content looks downright New stork Times-ian next to this slop...

Reply

Graffitibird

5/26/2016 03:40:05 pm

Leave it to me to rag on someone's proofing errors whilst allowing Stork to slide into mine. I meant York. facepalm

Reply

Kal

5/26/2016 03:19:22 pm

In the 1970s, according to history, Nixon courted dixie democrats and their weird ideas of conservative. They became the right wing fringe, and like Trump, will say anything to sell their brand. This Mr. P is no different.

If he thinks the Flinstones are actual cave men and that's how it is, he must have neglected to study that they are based on The Honeymooners, which is a black and white show about the archetypal angry husband and his dippy friend. Actually this makes sense to them. SW is essentially Fred and P. is Barney.

Reply

Doug

5/26/2016 03:42:31 pm

Jason, I have only recently started reading your blogs and I wanted to thank you for what your trying to do. I caught an episode of Ancient Aiens with Giorgio Tsoukalos a while back and couldn't belive the BS I heard. If only History Channel would come up with a show devoted to debunking psuedo-nonsense! Keep up the good work, and thanks again.

Reply

Bob Jase

5/26/2016 04:13:17 pm

But JHP doesn'r answer the most important question - where is King Og's sword and why is it probably on Oak Island???

Reply

Clint Knapp

5/26/2016 05:34:38 pm

Clearly, the original sword is lost, but it's image was copied by Commodus's artisans who made ten "perfect" replicas (oh, wait, Andy... what's the count really at these days?) that only seem to be Hercules-hilted when they are in fact Og-hilted.

I'm sure the original was much more impressive in stature and probably made of solid iron that only Og himself could lift.

As for Oak Island... well, maybe it's at the bottom of the money pit and acting like a magnet to all those nonferrous copies as they are spiritually attracted to the waters surrounding the island. Maybe when all ten (or fourteen, or whatever) perfect copies come together the original will awaken the dead-but-dreaming giant.

Reply

Jean Stone

5/26/2016 06:23:18 pm

At which point it will be revealed that his full name is Y'Og Sothoth.

Shane Sullivan

5/26/2016 07:05:24 pm

"Clearly, the original sword is lost, but it's image was copied by Commodus's artisans who made ten "perfect" replicas ... that only seem to be Hercules-hilted when they are in fact Og-hilted."

Well, Lucian (Author of "True History") did compare the Gaulish god Ogmios to Hercules. So, since Quayle thinks the Gauls were giants, I'd say we have enough data to start jumping to perfectly sane and rational conclusions.

Clint Knapp

5/26/2016 07:38:09 pm

And just like that, we have re-written True History! Highfives all around.

Time Machine

5/26/2016 08:49:00 pm

The Gospels are re-written history - they are FAKE, FAKE, FAKE and should be incinerated,

Klaus

5/27/2016 05:37:16 pm

think the brass ones all got sold on the bay recently ;)

Reply

Kathleen

5/26/2016 05:55:16 pm

Jason, when you were in contact with Demmon, did he mention if he would try to contact Quayle to tell him that he was the author of the "Book of King Og"? That's his copyrighted property, right?

Reply

Time Machine

5/26/2016 08:50:50 pm

Portions of the Gospels were lifted from other sources because the copyright of those portions expired,

Oh Kathleen, you are so picky.....

Reply

Time Machine

5/26/2016 08:53:50 pm

Gerald Friedlander, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount, KTAV 1911

Kathleen

5/26/2016 09:46:36 pm

Sigh...

Reply

Ron

5/26/2016 10:48:27 pm

Does Pulitzer not realize he was watching a science fiction movie? The name of the genre does tend to give it away. When I read his rant I thought at first he was trying to write a parody of reports about him because he kept referring to others using "pseudo-science" and "pseudo-archaeology".He seemed to miss laying the blame on who was responsible for not accepting that large dinosaurs that looked like baby crocodiles done up with cheap latex were still patrolling Venezuelan plateaus in the 1960s though. Thankfully by the end it was obvious he was not attempting comedy but just again showing why he was shown the door on Oak Island.

Reply

DaveR

5/27/2016 10:20:08 am

It's beginning to appear Pulitzer does not realize much of anything.

Reply

Jonathan Feinstein

5/27/2016 11:06:46 am

"Man the Hunter" Oh man, been years since I thought about that. The book that came out of the symposium was a major text for me back when I was an anthropology student in the 70's.

I do recall that while it was widely accepted at the time, it was not quite to the point of fully accepting the stereotype of men slogging in with slabs of meat to feed their families with. There were quite a few differences of opinion among my professors as to how fully the notion should be embraced and so it was already starting to fall apart even then.

However, the Man the Hunter Symposium was important in that it presented a view that 1) seemed to fit the facts as they were known at the time and gave scholars a theoretical model to test in a scientific manner to either support or refute as evidence mounted. Because the research was done, even though the theory/hypothesis was eventually refuted, we have continued to learn more about early humans and their cultures, so that the model of "Man the Hunter" was an important step toward what we now know, which in turn, is likely an important step toward whatever we shall learn next.

Knowledge is cumulative that way.

Reply

DaveR

5/27/2016 12:41:47 pm

The Scientific Method at work, unfortunately the fringe people do not follow this during their investigations.

Reply

Andy White

5/27/2016 01:37:23 pm

There is much irony in the title "Man the Hunter," as the papers in the volume collectively demonstrated that hunting often wasn't the most important thing to ethnographic hunter-gatherer societies. Counting calories among the !Kung, for example, demonstrated that plants contributed significantly more to the diet than animals. Other papers looked at mobility strategies, demography, social networks, etc. The title doesn't fit the content, which really didn't have much to do with the "man the hunter" model.

Reply

Titus pullo

5/28/2016 07:14:36 pm

To be honest so much of social science and even history has little understanding on human actions. Read Adam smith and Fredrick Hayek to understand humans and what drives them as wel as how the human condition is better in one culture than others. Pulitzer is selling what again? He is bad at fringe history. And doesn't even have any crazy theories. Must be tough for him as he she's all thing guys cashing in on ancient aliens and oak island but he just isn't smart enough to find an angle and cash in. Treasure commander? Ha ha

JoJo

5/28/2016 05:49:51 pm

Scott Scott Scott Scott?!!???? What in blue blazes are you thinking? At least we can understand the twisted rationale you have but this partnership is kind of not a good idea there buddy. Sorry. This is a mistake biblical in both scope and proportion. The worst mistake I have ever seen anyone make. Somewhat akin to professional suicide and we all get to watch. You need to go fishing and think about this there home slice.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

About Me

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.